Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell 170
| Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell | |
| author | Susanna Clarke |
| pages | 780 |
| publisher | Bloomsbury Publishing |
| rating | 7 |
| reviewer | Jose M. Weeks |
| ISBN | 1582344167 |
| summary | A serious novel of fantasy and magic. |
It is one of the great themes of fantasy, maybe even the theme: that some art or technology of incredible power has been lost, lost for ages--and just now, just in the present, it has been resurrected. We seek awakening, we seek renewal--I don't know, we seek something, because from The Lord of the Rings to The Wheel of Time to Stargate, this theme resonates.
In Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrel, the lost art is magic. This is England as the Nineteenth Century opens, and magic--founded in this country by a king who was once its strongest practitioner, a king who reigned three hundred years--is not practiced any longer. Oh, hundreds of magicians still argue vigilantly over its customs and methods and history, but the casting of actual spells is beyond them.
Enter Gilbert Norrell, a strange little recluse of a man, who hoards books and does his damnedest to end the career of any magician he can find. Who is also, by the way, the first Englishman to do magic in centuries. Mr. Norrell's purpose is to restore magic to England, provided it is studied and practiced under his terms, and preferably by no one but him.
Jonathan Strange, a young man who stumbles upon magic on a whim, who is to become Norrell's colleague, student, and adversary, has something slightly different in mind.
The subject here is not good versus evil, but a clash of ego and philosophy. The novel's villains are driven by fear, weakness, and self interest; its heroes by ambition and wonder. This complexity is what makes the novel a work of serious fiction, what prevents it from being an epic. Epics are fate-driven and rarely concerned with shades of motivation. Characters act because they must act, they must save the world or all is lost, etc., etc. Strange and Norrell want with everything they have to restore magic to England, to found a school of thought, to--well, many other things that I won't spoil--and even if the whole story has been foretold, even if it is fated, it is a story that stems from their intentions.
This is not my complaint. That it is not epic I find refreshing. That it is character-driven I find engaging. In a book about magic, about the re-awakening of mysticism, my complaint is that there is so very little that is spellbinding. Jonathan Strange in particular seems to be driven by his own imagination, and yet he seems limited and his spells tend to do little more that move things about.
The novel takes place during the Napoleonic Wars, and not long after the magicians present themselves to society, they become employed in fighting back the French. This leads to a scene suggesting great imagination, a port blockaded by ships, sails, and even a crew, all made of mist. Yet once on the ground, Mr. Strange finds himself mostly occupied by making roads and then tearing them up again. This may be useful, but for a magician it seems petty.
That said, Clarke handles the particulars of spell-casting rather well. As a matter of plot, the novel's magic must follow certain rules: Spells must have limitations, bad results must be possible and irreversible, there must be no "take-backs." This is why, in the classic short story "The Monkey's Paw," the father isn't allowed to wish never to have made any wishes--we as readers don't accept stories that "cheat" that way. In Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, Clarke skirts on the edge of cheating (she allows resurrection), but never really falls in. There is also the danger that spell-casting will devolve into a game of Mornington Crescent, which is to say a conspiracy among the magicians to pretend each isn't speaking complete gibberish. This Clarke nearly overdoes.
You may have heard that this novel is, well, Harry Potter for adults. Don't believe it. It's true that Clarke shares a publisher with J.K. Rowling, and that Rowling's success almost certainly affected the publisher's interest in pushing this novel, but the two authors share very little in terms of style. Clarke's work is witty but cold, while Rowling's prose is anything but subtle and a great deal warmer. I'm not the first, I'm sure, to make this comparison: I can think of few writers Clarke's work more clearly resembles than Jane Austen. Considering the setting of this novel, however, that's probably deliberate.
The main task of a writer of fantasy is to construct a new and different world, and in this Clarke has succeeded. Her overwhelming footnotes, the dozens of side tales told by one character or another, the books and customs and politics of an England not quite as it is, but wholly consistent unto itself--these build a believable whole, they tell an engrossing story, they suggest perhaps something more.
There is talent here, a great deal of it. I believe, on the evidence of Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, that Susanna Clarke does have some great books in her. But for the time being, with this, her first novel, we'll have to settle for simply "good."
You can purchase Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Re:An encouraging thought to me (Score:4, Informative)
Re:An encouraging thought to me (Score:2, Informative)
Anyway, there two bit of advice that I remember most clearly. Subject to memory error, the first is to try to publish some short stories first - less risk for the publisher, and then they know you. Second is to look for an agent once you've a letter of interest from a publisher. If they won't help you negotiate a deal with a publisher lined up and talking to you, then they won't help.
Re:Sounds worth a try (Score:5, Informative)
Jane Austin style admitted (Score:4, Informative)
http://magicdragon.com
over 15,000,000 hits/year
Re:Help with iPod por favor (Score:1, Informative)
-erick
Re:"adult fantasy novels"? (Score:1, Informative)
As to repent or hell, Luke 13: "2 Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them -- do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."
Repent or perish? That "Jesus" guy musta been one a them thar crazy Fundermentalists.
Re:"adult fantasy novels"? (Score:1, Informative)
You haven't? How many Baptist churches have you been in, exactly?
Re:"adult fantasy novels"? (Score:3, Informative)
As for the Coptic church: pretty much the same thing as the orthodox, but different words for the same concepts and different languages used. Pretty much the difference between Anglicans and Presbyterians, in other words (loosely). Anyway,from the Wiki: "Since the 1980s theologians from the two groups [orthodox & coptic churches] have been meeting in a bid to resolve the theological differences, and have concluded that many of the differences are caused by the two groups using different terminology to describe the same thing."
I guess I kinda bunched the Catholics & Orthodox churches together - they *are* very similar, despite outward appearances, and have been holding talks since the 60's about mutual recognition of each other's "religion." I think the original schism was mainly political, so it's not like there are huge gaps in theology between the two groups. Obviously i'm thinking like a protestant/evangelical and not a catholic, eh? Sorry to have missed anybody.
As for the "repent or go to hell, sinner!" comment: two different contexts. Jesus wasn't talking to "sinners," he was talking to his own disciples. He wasn't openly condemning somebody to hell, he was telling his guys what would happen if they didn't repent. This I hear a lot in church. But to actually go up to somebody and say to their face, "Repent or go to hell, sinner!"? That's pretty harsh. Never heard it used. Never.
Sorry to throw this waaay off-topic. Lol - I guess I'm risking my karma for Jesus, aren't I? :)
Re:"adult fantasy novels"? (Score:3, Informative)
It looks like you may be going for some sort or High Church vs Common Church distinction there, but that's more of a liturgical difference than a theological one. Lutherans have more in common with Catholics (free will, holy communion) than Prespyterians (Calvinism, predestination etc) when you actually look at their doctrine.